REMARKS.

THESE are the principal laws concerning women.

It is not now as it once was, when all existing institutions were considered
sacred and unalterable; and the spirit which made Blackstone an admirer of,
rather than a critic on, every law because it was law, is exchanged
for a bolder and more discriminating spirit, which seeks to judge calmly what is
good and to amend what is bad.

Philosophical thinkers have generally come to the conclusion that the tendency of
progress is gradually to dispense with law,—that is to say, as each individual
man becomes unto himself a law, less external restraint is necessary. And
certainly the most urgently needed reforms are simple erasures from the statute
book. Women, more than any other members of the community, suffer from
over‐legislation.

A woman of twenty‐one becomes an independent human creature,* capable of holding and administering
property to any amount; or, if she can earn money, she may appropriate her
earnings freely to any purpose she thinks good. Her father has no power over her
or her property. But if she unites herself to a man, the law immediately steps
in, and she finds herself legislated for, and her condition of life suddenly and
entirely changed. Whatever age she may be of, she is again considered as an
infant,—she is again under “reasonable restraint,”—she loses her
separate existence, and is merged in that of her husband.

“In short,” says Judge Hurlbut, “a woman is courted and wedded as an angel, and
yet denied the dignity of a rational and moral being ever after.”

* With regard to the property of women, there is taxation without
representation, for they pay taxes without having the liberty of voting
for representatives, and indeed there seems at present no reason why
single women should be denied this privilege.
—Note to Christian’s Blackstone.

page: 14

“The next thing that I will show you is this particularitie of law; in this
consolidation which we call wedlock is a locking together; it is true that man
and wife are one person, but understand in what manner. When a small brooke or
little river incorporateth with Rhodanus, Humber, or the Thames, the poore
rivulet loseth her name, it is carried and recarried with the new associate, it
beareth no sway, it possesseth nothing during coverture. A woman as soone as she
is married is called covert, in Latine nupta, that is vailed, as it were clouded
and overshadowed she hath lost her streame. * * I may more truly farre away say
to a married woman, her new selfe is her superior, her companion, her master.
The mastership shee is fallen into may be called in a terme which civilians
borrow from Esop’s Fables, Leonina societate.”*

Truly “she hath lost her streame,” she is absorbed, and can hold nothing of
herself, she has no legal right to any property; not even her clothes, books,
and household goods are her own, and any money which she earns can be robbed
from her legally by her husband, nay, even after the commencement of a treaty of
marriage she cannot dispose of her own property without the knowledge of her
betrothed. If she should do so, it is deemed a fraud in law and can be set aside
after marriage as an injury to her husband.

It is always said, even by those who support the existing law, that it is in fact
never acted upon by men of good feeling. That is true; but the very admission
condemns the law, and it is not right that the good feeling of men should be all
that a woman can look to for simple justice.

There is now a large and increasing class of women who gain their own livelihood,
and the abolition of the laws which give husbands this unjust power is most
urgently needed.

Rich men and fathers might still make what settlements they pleased, and appoint
trustees for the protection of minors and such women as needed protection; but
we imagine it well proved that the principle of protection is

* The Lawe’s
Resolutions of Women’s Rights,
A.D.
anno domini
1632.

page: 15 wrong, and that the
education of freedom and responsibility will enable women to take better care of
themselves and others too than can be insured to them by any legal
precautions.

Upon women of the labouring classes the difficulty of keeping and using their own
earnings presses most hardly. In that rank of life where the support of the
family depends often on the joint earnings of husband and wife, it is indeed
cruel that the earnings of both should be in the hands of one, and not even in
the hands of that one who has naturally the strongest desire to promote the
welfare of the children.

All who are familiar with the working classes know how much suffering and
privation is caused by the exercise of this right by drunken and
bad men. It is true that men are legally bound to support their wives and
children, but this does not compensate women for the loss of their moral right
to their own property and earnings, nor for the loss of the mental development
and independence of character gained by the possession and thoughtful
appropriation of money; nor, it must be remembered, can the claim to support be
enforced on the part of the wife unless she appeals to a court of law. Alas, how
much will not a woman endure before she will publicly plead for a
maintenance!

Why, we ask, should there be this difference between the married and unmarried
condition of women? And why does marriage make so little legal difference to
men, and such a mighty legal difference to women? In France it is somewhat more
equal; married women have a right, if they marry without a marriage contract, to
claim at the death of a husband half of whatever he possessed at the time of
marriage, or may have gained afterwards. If a woman have property of her own,
she may if she please marry under the “régime de séparation de corps et de
biens,” in which case she has the entire control of her own fortune, and has no
need of trustees. But usually marriages in France are of another description, or
under the “régime dotal,” in which case a portion of the property of the wife is
left at the disposal of the husband, and the rest placed in the hands of
trustees, much as it is with us
page: 16 in England. The
choice which the French law allows is however a great improvement on our
law.

In Turkey, daughters succeed equally with sons in houses and landed property, and
always take one‐third of the personal property. A widow receives one‐eighth of
the personal property, and must be provided for during her life by the heirs.
Women control their own inheritance when married; the husband has no power over
the inherited portion of his wife or wives.

In Hungary, the common law, before 1849 (the German law is now introduced), made
a broad distinction between inherited and acquired
property, whether landed or personal. Whatever was inherited went to the heirs;
it could not be subject to a will.

As to acquired property, the law only interfered to give half to the
wife; it was her absolute property, of which she might dispose in any way during
life or by will. Among the nobility this law did not obtain. In cases where
inherited property had been so left by the will of the first
acquisitor as to exclude the female sex, the brothers were
oblige to give a handsome sum if they married to their sisters, and provide for
them in a becoming way if they remained single.

The rights of a widow were great; she was guardian of children, administrator of
property, and, as long as she bore the name of her husband, she could exercise
all the political rights of a man; she could vote in elections of county
officers, and in those of the Deputies to the Diet.

Single females, according to the Hungarian law, were considered as minors, who
became of age upon marriage, and by marriage came into full control of all their
estates. They were not liable for the debts of their husbands; they were not
even bound to provide for the domestic expenses, the care of providing for the
house and the education of the children being incumbent on the husband. Wives
could make wills and sign deeds without the consent of the husbands. If a wife
died intestate, her property went to her children or collaterals.

In fact a wife was not regarded in Hungary as a minor, her husband was not her
guardian, nor were there trustees
page: 17 appointed for
her property. “None of my countrywomen would ever have submitted to such a
marriage settlement as is usual in England,” said a Hungarian lady, well known
for her genius and reputation. With the one exception of considering all
unmarried women as minors, the Hungarian law is very much in advance of
ours.

The laws in the United States are generally much the same as ours. As a general
rule married women cannot make a devise of real estate. In some of the States
there are more reasonable laws, and a married woman may make a will and devise
lands in the same manner as men. These States are Ohio, Illinois, Connecticut,
Mississippi, and Louisiana. In Ohio the laws are remarkably liberal to women.
The first section of the statute of wills in Ohio declares that any person of
full age and sound mind and memory may make a will. By the statute of Ohio it is
expressly provided that the will of an unmarried woman shall not be
revoked by her subsequent marriage.

What changes we find in the American laws are improvements upon ours. Is there
not evidence in our English laws of old opinions related to women which are
passing away with the old state of things which engendered them? In the early
times, when women were obliged by the violent state of society to be always
under the guardianship of father, brother, or husband, these laws might be
necessary; but in our peaceful times, such guardianship is proved to be
superfluous by the fact of the secure, honourable, and independent position of
single women who are sufficiently protected by the sanctuary of
civilisation.

Since all the unmarried women in England are supported either by their own
exertions or by the exertions or bequests of their fathers and relations, there
is no reason why upon marriage they should be thrown upon the pecuniary
resources of their husbands, except in so far as the claims of a third
party—children—may lessen the wife’s power of earning money, at the same time
that it increases her expenses. Of course a woman may, and often does, by acting
as housekeeper and manager of her husband’s concerns, earn a maintenance and a
right to share in his pro‐
page: 18 perty, independent
of any children which may come of the marriage. But it is evident that daughters
ought to have some sure provision—either a means of gaining their own bread, or
property—as it is most undesirable that they should look upon marriage as a
means of livelihood.

Fathers seldom feel inclined to trust their daughters’ fortunes in the power of a
husband, and, in the appointment of trustees, partially elude the law by a legal
device. Also, the much abused Court of Chancery tried to palliate the Common
Law, and recognizes a separate interest between husband and wife, and allows the
wife alone to file a bill to recover and protect her property, and trustees are
not necessary if there has been an agreement.

Why should not these legal devices be done away with, by the simple abolition of
a law which we have outgrown?

We do not say that these laws of property are the only unjust laws concerning
women to be found in the short summary which we have given, but they form a
simple, tangible, and not offensive point of attack.